Saturday, March 6, 2010

It's one thing to be upset with the status quo. Anyone who isn't is dreaming. Nonetheless, senseless violence is never going to solve anything. It's an outward sign of mental illness. I believe we're starting to experience the repercussions of an internet gone over the edge with goofy tinfoil.

This is the problem for us observers. Without paystubs, we don't know whether disinfo writers are grifters or some modern form of Cointelpro. We do have a paystub for Hal Turner. That was sweet. We do have tons of circumstantial evidence that for the most part, the internet is indeed rigged.

This entry is dedicated to J. Patrick Bedell, now better known as the Pentagon Shooter. Don't take that the wrong way. I am not going Ormond Otvos style and claiming his actions were heroic. Au contraire. I abhor violence. What he did was terribly wrong. However, Bedell is just another in a growing list of victims of the internet zeitgeist. It appears that the Turner type strategy of "drawing out the crazies" may be more akin to the creation of violent crazies.

In an earlier entry we saw how Jeff Wells of Rigorous Intuition was partly responsible for Theresa Duncan's demise. We also saw how he has contributed to the worsening of some individual's mental states, e.g. Lynn Schirmer. Now we can tie Jeff Wells and his brand of disinfo to the deterioration of Bedell's mental state. It may appear to be a tenuous connection. I don't think so.

After this entry, I'll follow up with another example of how the internet zeitgeist has had disastrous effects on some individual's mental health. We will see how frauds at Democratic Underground may have triggered the suicide of gifted blogger Annette Appollo. But that's for another day. Just giving a sneak preview, just saying that I for one have not given up in speaking truth to bullshite. I am begging any of ye out there on the edge to realise that most of the big names and players in the so-called alternative media are full of it. Stop falling for their nonsense. Yes, the world stinks. Worst case scenario, we do the best we can and live out our lives with as much dignity as possible. Stop buying into the schticks of confidence players and possible black ops. Violence and suicide are not options. We can beat back these suckers through the forming of pockets of awareness.

My internet friend The Last Name Left recently wrote a blog post titled Alex Jones - lies about neo-liberalism / Ron Paul. I mention this, because in the entry he namedropped the Von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell. I don't think this was a coincidence. Both of us among others are breathing down the necks of internet zeitgeist manipulators. We can see clearly their disasterous influence on real life tragedies coming to fruition. E.G., Holocaust Museum shooter Von Brunn was an internet freak. We are both very worried about how charlatans such as Michael Rivero and Alex Jones are contributing to their readers having unstable worldviews. It turns out that J. Patrick Bedell was not only an admirer of 9/11 conspiracy theory but listed himself as a fan of both the Von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell on his Facebook page.

Facebook has deleted his account. However, I took a screenshot before they did so.

There's a cached version available, at least as of last night. However, it does not include the same Bedell friends that I captured proof of.

Daniel Hopsicker? What the fricken sassa frassa?

That Jeff Wells is a friend of Hopsicker is no surprise. They are both promoters of the same tinfoil publishers. They both believe that 9/11 was an inside job but have gone out of their way to call the idea of controlled demolition disinfo. What's up with Hopsicker adding Jeff Rense as a friend? Does he want to be taken seriously or not?

Here's a screenshot of Jeff Wells' Facebook page.

Don't let Jeff's cool appearance fool you. One can listen to an interview he did with disinfo writer Fintan Dunne and hear one of the weakest voices on the planet. Ever hear of Tom Selleck? He's the macho dude who played Magnum P.I.. Talk about a dog-whistle voice. Similar to Jeff Wells. Yes, I admit this is an ad hominem. I just thought I'd chuck it out here for the heck of it. p:>

Anyway, did you notice the plugs for TrineDay Publishing by both Hopsicker and Wells? Or how about Wells having Adam Parfrey as a friend? Parfrey runs something called Feral House. Parfrey publishes a similar disinfo writer to Wells with the pseudonym of Alex Constantine. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Here's another odd connection. We know that Tinoire and Jeff Wells have been buddies. We know that in addition to Tinoire supporting Mike Rivero, she has received support in the past from yet another disinfo writer named Wayne Madsen. Now lookie here. At Hopsicker's website where he plugs for donations, he has the gall to put a Madsen quote underneath the paypal link. Another coincidence? No fricken way!

Here's where things go from goofy to bizarre. One of Hopsicker's big "scoops" was tracking down and interviewing Mohamed Atta's supposed girlfriend Amanda Keller. Hopsicker's schtick was about saying Atta couldn't possibly have been an "Islamo-fascist" since he was dating a stripper or something like that, and he was snorting cocaine and drinking and whatnot. So I looked into this Amanda keller angle last night. It led me to this video by Hopsicker.

THE SECRET WORLD OF MOHAMED ATTA

Towards the second half of the video appears Hopsicker's interview of Keller. Right before that, Hopsicker puts up pictures of Keller with her boyfriend. I took screenshots. The first one below is of Mohamed Atta, the famous one we have all seen. The ones that follow are from Hopsicker's video. Who the fock does Hopsicker think he's fooling?

Compare that with the pictures from Hopsicker's video.

That does not look like Atta to me. Am I missing something here? Keller later came out and said she had made the whole thing up.

. It was my bad for lying. I really didn't think about it until after I did it.

This is my theory on what happened. I think Keller lied thinking she might be able to make an easy buck off of a hoax. You know, sell that "info" to a National Enquirer type publication.

Anyone who has read my stuff knows that I have this sinking feeling that much of internet disinfo is about controlled opposition. Here's one example. Alex Jones. He has anti-semite Michael Rivero on as a frequent guest. Alex spins conspiracy theory as the world being run by a global New World Order. That's code for Jooos. Yet since he isn't as obvious a Jew-hater as Rivero and others, the controlled opposition spins Alex Jones as being a zionist shill. It's quite ridiculous.

So let's segue to the controlled opposition that came out against Hopsicker and his claims about Keller. That would be in the form of Fintan Dunne. Granted, Fintan was one of the first to come out and say the Keller story was a hoax. But if one looks into it, he did so as a strawman. He made it seem that Keller and Atta were in close contact. His spin was that Keller is a CIA agent!

On a side tangent, Fintan's the same guy who claimed Bev Harris was also a "CIA 9/11 Rat" fake.

The strange thing about that one is Fintan's main blogger was Steven Hertzberg of the Election Science Institute. What did Fintan do when Hertzberg was outed as Navari? He deleted the dude's account, making it much more difficult to search out his posts. Steven actually did some work with Bev back in the early days of the "Election Integrity" Movement. His brother Robert Hertzberg was one of the first to sponsor legislation for funding electronic voting. Hmmm. Interested folks can read more about this in the forum linked to in my blogger profile.

Let's get back to Hopsicker and subsequently Wells and wrap this thing up.

Oops. Before doing so, did you hear that Obama is an NWO/KGB operative? That's the ticket according to "Fintan Dunne."

Anyway, the first half of that video from above had Hopsicker interviewing someone named Kris Millegan.

Kris is the publisher behind TrineDay Publishing. He has published Jeff Wells. He is in that category of publisher which pumps out gobs of tinfoil. There's Carol Adler of Dandelion with its ties to PMC4 LLC. and subsequently Michael Rivero as shown in a previous post. There's Adam Parfrey of Feral House mentioned earlier. Are these merely grifters or part of something much more insidious? I don't know. What I do know is that their outputs are having disasterous effects on mentally unstable folks like J. Patrick Bedell.

58 comments:

socrates said:"Has Wells ever retracted his disinfo? I don't think he ever has. Like with now saying Gannon was never Gosch, has he ever said, "Wow, I messed up and am sorry?"

Finally, someone who is willing to speak frankly about the socially irresponsible behaviour of paranoia promoting, despair inducing, rumor-mongering bloggers.

The Gosch = Gannon speculations were blatantly, grotesquely irresponsible. There can be no excuse for Wells having helped concoct and then promote them. He does owe a lot of people apologies for that, not least of which being Gannon/Guckert. But, I don't think he ever will retract his false inferences. I think that Wells, like other sour grapes munching wannabe journalists who cut their baby teeth on FRANK magazine, is devoted to the maxim of never apologizing for anything they put out for public consumption.

The promotion and incitement of violent retribution against public institutions and their employees, perceived to have wronged us in some manner, used to be the stock & trade of extreme rightwingers ala the Patriot Militias. People on the Left OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER, but apparently the lure of website hits can overpower reason and social conscience.

Others have tried. There's a place called Democratic Underground where a lot of this stuff first got its exposure. Many of the disinfo writers got their start there. Dave Weintraub proved that Daily Kos has been rigged. DU has been also.

My next entry will be on a blogger named Tangerine LaBamba. She was someone who didn't suffer fools. I noticed one of her posts from just about when she got banned. She was pointing out how stupid it had been for DU to be spreading the nonsense that Bush and Cheney had been indicted. When a person is too effective in speaking truth to nonsense, no matter how eloquently or within the rules, they are banned.

People like Wells and Fintan Dunne never admit their mistakes. They don't even make tasteless jokes like GW did about no weapons of mass destruction under the desk. At least GW in his own way admitted that was a lie. So basically one day Wells wrote that Gannon wasn't Gosch. He never admitted that he was one of the key people behind the spreading of that hoax.

Are you from Canada? I don't know anything about FRANK Magazine. I tried to figure it out a while back but didn't find much. When I look at Wells' writing, I don't see much. He had that one book a long time ago. His last one was supposedly a compilation of his blog entries over the years. He hasn't written much the last year. I took a look at his last one. It was pure hack material. No heart. Just a lot of cliches with hyperlinks. Most of his earlier entries had next to no posts. If you scrolled down a bit, you'd hit tons of spam.

Then later on his comment sections became a total mind fock experience much like his forum. There was someone posting tons of satanic spam. These guys like to talk up the idea of triggers, yet Jeff never deleted what one could easily argue were triggers for bad thoughts, that is if his satanic ritual abuse angle had any merit. His moderator and webmaster Ego is a fricken trigger in himself. The RI forum background has had "triggering" wallpaper for years on end. Strange that.

People on the left ought to know better, I agree. That makes me think some of these people might be wolves in sheep clothing. At another forum I've been at a lot the last year, one infamous blogger named DavidByron spoke of the need to aim higher with violence. He was referring to the uprising in Iran. I called him to task on it. Then by chance or perhaps because of my gadfly-ness, he drastically cut back on his posting. Recently another self-proclaimed lefty named Ormond Otvos declared that Stack flying a plane into a govt. building was a heroic action. Absurd. Hard to believe someone would actually post such a thing. For that reason, I grabbed a screenshot. You never know when something might be scrubbed.

I'm in stalker-avoidance mode (nothing serious) so I don't want to say much about my offline life at the moment.

FRANK magazine was an obscure, low low budget publication, in magazine format but printed on newsprint. It was distributed independently, so it was never easy to find on news stands. Primary distribution seemed to be by subscription, through a post-office box that changed every 6 months or so. FRANK never broke any stories of importance, it was devoted to airing the dirty laundry of politicians & civil servants. Much of the subscriber base were probably civil servants, as a lot of content was insider jokes and references that ordinary folk wouldn't understand. Frequently, it was little more than mean-spirited slanders and mud-slinging. The "Dick Little" column written by Wells epitomized that aspect of FRANK.

Wells has been more careful than many bloggers about keeping himself out of his own writings. He doesn't talk much about his personal life, his life history, his emotional state, his offline friendships or activities. When you make your living mocking other people's faults & foibles, as Wells did while writing for FRANK, it would be vital to hide your true self in the shadows as much as possible, to minimize the risk of "retaliation in kind" by your victims.

Texas is at the root of some very foul things going on in this country. things behind 9/11, the JFK assassination, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the 2000 "selection" of Bush which led to 9/11 and Dick and Bush's total mishandling of 9/11, some would say to create the pearl harbor event for Iraq. Also. their is the Ft. Hood shooting recently, this Joe Stack guy who flew his plane into a building and now this Bedell guy who had Austin ties. What you are going to find down near the roots of all of this are patriot movements, anti-government groups, militias and some muslim brotherhood connections in these networks. That's in the roots. Higher up in a few positions of power in the CIA, FBI, American Media and elsewhere you will find sympathizers like the guys who are obviously covering up the anthrax case. And those who are covering up the true details of 9/11 to protect these networks at the roots. This is the cancer that America is fighting within.

Lotta connections in there. It needs putting into a image, I think - brainmap stylee....

I'll make a start. I need that grouping software.....a single picture with all the connections of these grifters will end up massive.....it got too big just going through some Nazi connections to Rivero and GCN, Jones, etc.

As for "lefties oughta know better".....I think they do. I don't think these people are "lefties". It can be useful for them to be thought of as left....I reckon.

Lots of Nazi/fascist stuff has that apparently contradictory dual message.....which makes me think of Strauss....and his two level messages. And I think there's probably only a few people funding them all. I don't believe half the advertisers are real, for example.

Quite amazing - how few people can generate such a shitstorm on the internet.....and create and kind of control "a movement". I doubt there's anything like "the movement" that there appears on the net......but these people are having an effect, undoubtedly I reckon. They're cleverly exploiting every issue.....and setting an agenda. It's an impressive achievement imo - judging on results, i mean. Shame they're a load of tossers with reactionary views. :D

So, now if Bedell has you in his friends on Facebook, youre connected to the Pentagon shooting???

Im laughing so hard, I just pissed myself!

Thats HILARIOUS! So, if I had a facebook page and some of my friends were Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Pee Wee Herman, Jimmy "J.J." Walker or Pope Benedict and I was involved in a shooting, that means THEY are connected too??? If I added YOU on my friends list, would YOU be connected too???

Ahhhhh, that would be DIFFERENT, wouldnt it??????

Your post would make me angry if I wasnt so busy LAUGHING.

Why would they have DELETED the account before the FBI had a chance to INVESTIGATE each of his Facebook friends??? Hmmmmmmmm?????

"Ron Paul also has a big following in Austin among a certain cadre of libertarian white dude types who proliferate like cypress and scrub oak trees in the Hill Country."

Gee, I dont know, that MIGHT have something to do with the fact that Ron Paul is a Congressman from TEXAS [14th district]----but I dont know...Im just "guessing". That MAY be the connection...gee...Im not sure.

I'm not sure, because not a facebooker, but I think if you have someone as a "friend" on FB it means the connection is two-way. You ask someone to be yur friend and they have to accept in order to be considered a "friend."

In this case it means that the Pentagon shooter has friends who traffic in conspiracy theories just as the shooter himself did. In fact, the connection is most likely a pure internet connection.

Unless they met in RL?

And yes, Ron Paul and Austin are both in Texas, and so is Alex Jones. So , no doubt, there are plenty of paranoid teapartiers and paultards running around Texas.

And many of them will stretch logic and make all manner of rationalisations to avoid the consequences of pushing CT on vulnerable, mentally unstable people.

You reap what you sow, Larry.

Please excuse the use of a phrase stolen from the Christian conspiracy movement.....

The other odd thing about RI is that Wells, Barracuda, Nomo, Compared2What and many of the long timers seem to uniformly take a stance limiting discussion of the controlled demolition theory(though like many have made note, other topics are not off limits). One of the posters calling RI a Honeypot linked to the Compared2What thread titled "RI "Bad" Guys: UR DOIN IT WRONG" in which she basically said they were all agents and some of them "were not doing it right" and exposing their methods or some such crap and may be in danger. Have to see if I can find the exact quote... but WTF is going on over there? And none of the usual suspects ever really called her out for making the statement. Strange.

It just seems strange that on a blog where anything goes, they take such a firm stance against discussion of controlled demolition.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27363&start=90

On the thread above, some are even suggesting that RI is itself a honey pot. A couple of posters in that thread have taken the moderators to task about how fishy it is that they are so concerned with limiting discussion of controlled demolition threads. You don't see the moderators concerned about other much more ridiculous topics... but on Controlled Demolition RI always wants to close those threads down. You would think the moderators if they didn't care for it would just ignore those threads... but they don't. Every time controlled demolition comes up there is a push by the RI regulars to shut it down.

So people wonder openly there if RI is a honeypot. My personal feeling is this, RI is indeed a honeypot. Just a matter of who and what is running the honeypot and more importantly why? Socrates has pointed out some far right connections. Is it the far right pulling RI's strings? Has RI been asked by some group of the far right to avoid the topic kind of like how Democratic Underground obviously has mods and fake posters in place to shut down 9/11 discussions? All of these so called "liberal" boards are asked to shut down and confuse 9/11 discussions for the same basic reason... we all know there is something in the USA that helped to pull off 9/11. Just like we know something in the USA helped kill JFK and is to this day still being protected. I have zero evidence but that is the only thing that seems to make sense of what the mods at RI are doing in light of some of the other things they have been involved with(Tinoire's Commie Honeypot over at Progressive Independent and the Gannon/Gosch hoax over at DU).

It was the far right after all that ran the government when the USA was attacked and had plenty of opportunities to shut the hijackers down but didn't. And it was the far right that attacked the Oklahoma City building, it was the far right in cahoots with muslim agent provocateurs that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. It has been the far right mostly with ties to Texas that has been attacking the U.S. government facilities over the past few months(or in the case of Alex Jones, egging it on). And I imagine it would be certain parts of the far right that would probably want to limit discussion of controlled demolition. Specifically those far right elements unfortunately too close either by accident or by choice with whatever groups may have brought down the towers by controlled demolition on 9/11 if controlled demo is how it happened which i tend to believe. Hope they all get exposed to the light of day very soon so America can move on to better things.

If you don't think there have been cd discussions at RI you obviously have not been reading there long.

In fact, it is just the opposite like so many internet forums. If people try to discuss the other aspects of 9/11 cd'ers will flock to the discussion and berate anyone who tries to look at any other aspect. Been that way for years. Tons more on "freefall" at RI than you will see about Carlyle and the fine bin Laden family bidness.

In fact I boldly predict the same thing will happen right in this thread. Long spammish posts about cd.

By the way, socrates, I like your work but if you have a headline about Wells being linked to the Pentagon shooter, you should probably toss in some evidence that Wells is linked to the Pentagon shooter. Just a suggestion.

Here is a bill that was proposed but has not been passed concerning gun sales to potential terrorists.

HR 2159

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2159

Now, as we all know, the FBI has a list of over 1,000,000 names on their "suspected" terror list. In other words, it doesnt matter if you are a potential terrorist or not-----only if they THINK you are. I could be a potential terrorist just for being involved in 9-11 truth or speaking out against the Federal Reserve.

Here is a bill proposed to establish national emergency centers on military installations. In other words, FEMA camps:

puts Obama and a group of state governors in charge in the event of martial law. The bill makes no mention of Congress. Congressman Peter DeFazio asked to look at this legislation and was denied access to it, even though DeFazio sits on the Homeland Security committee.

Anonymous March 9, 2010 7:48 AM said :"Tons more on "freefall" at RI than you will see about Carlyle and the fine bin Laden family bidness."

Places like RI are all for figuring out the whodunnit part of 9/11 but for some reason not very interested in the howdunnit. And when RI does goes after the whodunnit they have an odd tendency of totally fumbling the subject matter so that the information because useless.

The posters on RI seem to have a uniform focus that the CIA or the U.S. government did 9/11. But are never very good at getting into the specifics of whodunnit. RI favorite Hugh Manatee posts a lot of absolute rubbish over there at RI turning good threads into total worthless and unreadable shit. But he never really does any real deep research to get at the culprits. And yet he is praised by the regulars on RI. The whole site is like that. Mixing up and confusing various 9/11 subjects while attacking posters on the site who are trying to untangle all of the crap in order to get at the facts. RI is either run by idiots or disinformationists. What else explains the games going on over there?

That can't be by accident that the site elevates the ones pumping out the garbage(Hugh) and attacks the ones trying to get at the facts.

The most glaring discrepancy on 9/11 is that two massive skyscrapers totally collapsed to the ground by being hit by two airplanes. And a third building WTC 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane.

That is a very important bit of physical information that could change the perception of 9/11 if it weren't being blocked from all of these groups putting out disinfo. Buildings don't collapse like a house of cards when hit. And fires do not cause entire buildings to collapse. The official explanation does not hold up and people are calling this fact out. And all of these sites trying to downplay this fact should be rightly called out as disinformation if they cannot put out a reasonable explanation for how these buildings came down.

It is this most damning evidence that Rigorous Intuition and other sites are completely against investigating while at the same time playing host to all manner of stupid topics. How can RI with a straight face pretend to want to keep the integrity of their forum by limiting talk of controlled demolition while at the same time playing host to a bunch of stupid discussions about aliens trying to take over the U.S. government???

It really smells rotten over there and people are speaking up about it.

The most glaring discrepancy on 9/11 is that two massive skyscrapers totally collapsed to the ground by being hit by two airplanes. And a third building WTC 7 collapsed even though it was not hit by a plane.

That is a very important bit of physical information that could change the perception of 9/11 if it weren't being blocked from all of these groups putting out disinfo.

Hmm - it's hardly forbidden knowledge - it's everywhere. Who doesn't know about Troofers and their claims? People know as much, if not more about Troofiness than they do about socialism, for example.---

On RI, I largely agree with you, but from a different perspective.

One thing I foind odd about the place is that they make a deal about being "anti-fascist" yet there's never any posting on fascism, let alone criticism and identification of it. What there is, as so often, is misidentification of this supposed "NWO" as "fascism". Hmmm. They can't spot the real thing, nor do they seem to care about it - there's no posts about it - but they see fascism in all the "NWO" stuff, and they really do care about that.... Odd.

Securing the borders is fascist! Opening the borders is fascist! Having a vast military machine is fascist! Having insufficient means to protect from attack is fascist! Destruction of jobs is fascist! Socialism is fascist! blah blah blah blah.

Absolutely senseless, but no-one seems to notice.

fires do not cause entire buildings to collapse.

they always have done.

all of these sites trying to downplay this fact should be rightly called out as disinformation if they cannot put out a reasonable explanation for how these buildings came down.

No - at the very least you are prejudging. You don't know what happened on 911. Don't imagine you do - and don't start judging people as if you do know, because you don't. 8 1/2 years and 911Troof has not a single piece of positive evidence towards anything other than the obvious, for which there is plenty of very good evidence. We can't throw over rules of evidence and inquiry simply because Troofers (or anyone else) is convinced of a particular view, and we mustn't fall into the trap of disregarding law, due process, innocence til proven guilty etc etc etc. At best you don't know what happened - that's as far as you can reasonably go. And even that position requires ignoring all the very good evidence for the obvious. You aren't going to overturn 911 by overturning scientific method and justice.

How can RI with a straight face pretend to want to keep the integrity of their forum by limiting talk of controlled demolition while at the same time playing host to a bunch of stupid discussions about aliens trying to take over the U.S. government???

I was off the net for a few days. I never expected all these responses. Thanks.

Bob, I hear you on anonymity issues. Who'd a thunk that a self-described journalist would out me and to an insidious cyberstalker to boot? The stalking wasn't too bad. A few fake posts were made in my name. That's in addition to fake socrates posts made, things where it was spinned that I am a multipersonality troll having fake conversations with myself, e.g. that I'm the last name left, may41970, and others. It's been kind of bizarre. I'm apparently also Jay Reynolds, donkeytale, noom, shadowthief and the bloggingcurmudgeon. Ha, that would mean I was an administrator at My Left Wing. Some very disgusting emails were personally sent. That was probably the worst of it.

Thankfully there is nothing on the net about my real life other than from what I've offered. I'm not the only one Brad Friedman did that to. He sent me personal emails from Kathy Dopp to himself. She's an election integrity person he wanted me to not support. I did speak to a local detective. I forwarded him the emails and screenshots of the other cyberstalking. I'm not worried about it. It stunk at first, but it happens. I don't go looking anymore for new examples. I just try to make it clear I am only posting here and at a few other places, and that if anything pops up otherwise, it's not me.

I don't know what Jeff's scam ultimately is. He definitely writes a lot of stupid things. He was close to Andy Stephenson and many in the zeitgeist. Thanks for the info on Frank Magazine. I had a feeling it wasn't that important a publication. Thanks for confirming.

Maybe Jeff, Constantine, that Millegan TrineDay dude, Hopsicker and others receive funding from the same source. Without paystubs, however, it's all speculation. All one can do is post their findings, maybe throw in some ideas and then let the readers decide. It's all very strange, imho.

There are a bunch more posts that have been added to this thread. Blogger isn't the greatest format for this kind of thing, but I'll do my best. I'll also try to not delete anything. I do try to be fair about it.

I'm not saying Jeff Wells was "handling" Theresa Duncan. Same with Hopsicker's unknown but tangible relationship with Bedell. Nonetheless, I do think it's clear the net is a catalyst for a lot of people taking crazy actions.

The word satire is thrown around, imho, as a form of plausible deniability. Theresa Duncan obviously did believe a lot of things coming out of the Jeff Wells disinfo camp. She appears to have been a regular lurker of RI, going as far as to plug his website at her blog.

Duncan wouldn't have lauded Wells, if she hadn't possessed a fundamental trust in him. She bought into the Franklin hoax, as seen with her diatribe against Ana Gaskell and her Republican guardian. With all due respect, she and Jeremy were paranoid, conspiracy theorist. I don't see how anyone can suggest otherwise. I think it's fair to say the internet killed their souls.

I don't know how one can debate people like Alex Jones, Jeff Wells, Mike Rivero, and many others aren't having negative influences on unstable individuals. That's the main point I tried to make with this blog entry, though I admit I could have articulated it better.

The Texas connection could be a good lead. I don't know much about the radio station that employs Alex Jones, but a while back I stumbled into a dude named Patrick Timpone who also broadcasts for them. He talks up the new world order. He had that guy Eustace Mullins as a guest. Was Art Bell also from Texas?

There's that dude Elfis Smiles. He gives me the creeps.

By the way, I was listening to Coast to Coast Radio for about twenty minutes last night. That was the first time since I used to listen to Art Bell once in a while for laughs many years ago. I couldn't believe the stories coming out of the callers. And the worst of it was that Noory guy accepting it as if they were probably true stories. Some guy said some blah, blah, yadda, then he had a memory lapse, then he found himself on an airport tarmac, ended up speaking with investigators, etc., who of course told him not to discuss anything. I think there was also mention of ufos in there. Just crazy stuff.

I'll admit something. About twenty years ago, I crank called a late night talk show. Made something bizarre up. Not tinfoil. I won't get into specifics. My point is people could be crank calling shows like that, and the hosts are just going along with it. That's how I feel about websites like Rigorous Intuition.

I still remember when the poster Jack Riddler couldn't wrap his head around the implications of Tinoire claiming to have been military intelligence. He's also a big supporter of the BradBlog-Sibel Edmonds stuff, among other things. That Arcadia Ego guy is another one I don't trust. I'm seeing too many coincidences. I'm fairly up front about my belief that not all contrails are the result of ordinary aircraft emissions. Anyway, that guy Arcadia used to be a big shot chemmie. I remember RI used to be an open-minded place about that. Hillshoist and Wells also seemed to be "chemtrail" believers. But then all of a sudden Ego became a debunker. Wells and Hillshoist then seemed to also do 180 degree turns and side with Arcadia's newfound angle of mocking anyone questioning the skies. Yes, most chemmies deserve to be mocked, as do closed-minded debunkers. It's almost as if the whole thing has been distorted by design. Oh well, I cover that shite at my forum, so no need to indulge on that here. Apologies.

Arcadia Ego also became too involved in some outrageous cybersmear script put in place against me. There's a lot I don't understand. I honestly don't know whether he is paid disinfo or someone suffering mental illness along with a bad case of being sadistic. Wow, sorry for rambling.

I agree with TLNL's take, that there appears to be an organised, networked grifting campaign mostly originating from the same place. As in astroturf. Fake grassroots. I also have come around to see how describing this as black operations, especially without the paystubs, will only reinforce their zeitgeist. In other words, we can't expose these fockers if we allow them to control the pace. Free thinkers must be vigilant in not becoming part and parcel of the overall spin. Just look at Larry. He is the ultimate example of someone incapable of separating himself from the zeitgeist powers that be.

I also agree these aren't pure lefties. Real lefties criticise Israel, for example, without demonizing Jewish people. True lefties wouldn't praise Huey Long or say McCain would have been better than Obama. I've seen those two things elsewhere.

I'm not sure if we really need to come up with software to link up all these people, though, that could be a very good idea. Maybe that would avoid feeling angst that we need to reinvent the wheel. And back to the thing about Larry. I used to be like that. I would take people like Tinoire and Brad at face value and just assume their hearts were in the right place. When a guy like Larry continues to support a Holocaust denier like David Dees, ugh, that's what I'm talking about. Heck, I used to post at Fintan Dunne's website. I liked his idea of internet fakes. Yet, soon enough I saw that he didn't add up. BradBlog was the last straw for me. That's when I realised much of the net is a controlled scam. At least the parts of it a bunch of us are aware of. It is a big blogosphere, however, so TLNL's idea of a diagram or type of spreadsheet or something, sort of an outline or index of knowable connections, could be fruitful one.

I've said before that I don't understand how some who have serious doubts about 9/11 can be adamant that controlled demolition is a strawman. I don't know what happened on 9/11. I've barely looked into it. But I have seen Wells push that Neil Bush was the head of security at the WTC. That's not logical. Why is cd a planted disinfo meme but Neil Bush as security man isn't?

Building 7 is the one to focus on. It wasn't hit by a plane. It had no sprinkler system? That wasn't a small building either, and I think it had a strong core.

I wouldn't mind two decent people debate that. I'm not however into hearing a guy like Larry scream his stuff. That's not something newbies and fence-sitters want to hear. We need things spelled out as clearly and simply as possible.

The mother lode right wing link to RI has to be Tinoire. From there one can easily tie RI to Mike Rivero and subsequently Jeff Rense, Carto, Maynard, et al. And now we see Hopsicker has made Jeff Rense one of Facebook friends? I see Larry's point that Facebook friends don't prove anything. But then where is the cutoff point? Having Jeff Rense as a friend is awful.

And back a bit to 9/11. Hopsicker believes cd is a waste of time topic for 9/11 questioners, but his shady Amanda Keller stuff isn't? From above, one can see that the Atta we know about is not the same guy as Keller's boyfriend. Can anyone explain that to me? So is Hopsicker making things up to sell books? Constantine? Where does Wells or Dunne make any money out of their blogging? Does anyone actually donate money to them? I doubt it. I could see a guy like Brad Friedman getting donations in his earlier days. But not now. Nonetheless, he still has the Velvet Revolution and the Speedway Bomber running around suckering wealthy new agers. I am honestly baffled by much of what I see on the internet. I wish more paystubs from Disinfo R Us Inc. would show up, a la Hal Turner. Yet, until those do, I can only imagine that Wells and Hopsicker are working for TrineDay and Feral House, those kinds of companies. But even that seems to fall flat as an explanation.

Anon, I don't agree that we all know 9/11 had some inside job explanation to it. It's possible. But I do agree with you that the far right is behind the spreading of convolution on the net. You see, now it's all about Obama being no different, that he's part of the all-encompassing New World Order. However, we know that it was Rove, Cheney, and others who through the White House Iraq Group planned and initiated the illegal Iraq War. Conspiracies are real. There was actually an MK ULTRA program. There was an Operation Northwoods plan, though it was never acted on. The JFK assassination was clearly shady, beyond Oswald as a lone nut.

The Gannon-Gosch story is an excellent example of internet convolution. There was also Leopold's saying that Rove and Bush were indicted. We have seen something similar with the Michael Connell threatened by Karl Rove hoax. However, the holy grail for fockers like us is to show that these things haven't been beyond grifting. We have that Hal Turner paystub. There are some other nuggets that have been proven, such as with Netvocates, the Rendon Group, military bloggers, etc..

I liked Patrick Fitzgerald's analogy of dirt being thrown up to obfuscate the umpire's vision. Unfortunately, many of these internet personalities have the plausible deniability that they are either grifters or naive with delusions. Look at Ted Gunderson. He could have just gone nuts like a Colonel Kurtz from Appocalypse Now. Though his FBI resume along with his Forrest Gump like showing up in a lot of places surely makes me wonder. Or look at Riconosciuto. Maybe he makes things up as an attempt to get out of his prison sentence sooner.

As annoying as all these things are, I must admit a certain fascination with trying to figure it out. Maybe we have but just don't realise it yet.

I admit the link between Wells to the Pentagon shooter is not strong, at least not as much as his tie to Theresa Duncan. Though I think I made that pretty clear in the blog entry.

Fintan Dunne makes a lot of claims about CIA internet fakes yet never supplies proof. I don't understand people like Wells and Ego. I admit it. I also admit a lot of my animosity towards people like them and Friedman, even Tinoire, are due to how they personally treated me. But I stand by nearly everything I've written. Tinoire did say she was military intelligence. Rivero did have contact addresses with both PMC4 LLC. and McDonnell Douglas. It gets to be kind of a mind fock actually the number of things we end up finding out, like an information overload, and I apologise for that.

As for Larry talking up possible legislation about regulating thought on the net, maybe he is thinking of the Sunstein piece on cognitive infiltration. Not sure.

In regards to how this specific thread continues, who knows? Maybe it will fizzle after this flurry of longwinded posts by myself. A debate on cd might be interesting. I wouldn't mind hearing both sides.

I do agree that spam and copy and pastes destroy those kinds of discussions. People want to hear what others think, with a link or two when applicable. That dude American Dream at RI is the worst. Not only does he pimp for News Making News too much, like Joseph Cannon did, he gutters up threads with huge copy and pastes. I don't like people marking up books, before I read them. I don't like people copying and pasting too much. It reminds me of the horror of reading the pages and pages of names in that early section of The Iliad.

I'm not saying all these links mean too much. However, I do think it's strange that Bedell had Hopsicker as a friend. The Pentagon Shooter was clearly influenced by the conspiracy theory zeitgeist. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.

TLNL, I agree with you that the people at RI do not understand what fascism is. Personally, I do think large militaries are a big part of modern fascism. Or maybe the word fascism needs to be thrown out the window. Fascism and socialism have no meaning to these people. They are catch words. I think the word totalitarianism would be an easier one for them to use. I see America as finally being a fascist country. Of course as a youth, I called it that also. The last ten years have seen the facade of democracy exposed, in a way that the Frankfurt School used to chide the West as being a culture industry controlled by corporations and theMmilitary-Industrial Complex. Now one needn't be an intellectual to be aware that the West is structurally corrupt. In the vernacular, fascism and socialism are just words. Orwell's doublespeak comes to mind on how right woos left has co-opted such terms.

Now on to 9/11 a bit. Your use of the word troofer is ok, I think, for the most part. However, the guest here has shown no right wing tendencies. Troofer, as I see it, refers to the specific nature of right woos left in regards to 9/11. Hence, you may want to lose that term out of respect for this person.

I also see that you are saying he is prejudging what we know about 9/11 and fitting it into his belief of an inside job or to be more specific, controlled demolition. If Building 7 was taken down by explosives, would that imply an inside job? In short, maybe we can focus in on this specific debate.

If so, then perhaps you two can provide your best stuff concerning building 7. There's no need to discuss Buildings 1 and 2, imho. #7 wasn't hit by a plane. #7 fell pretty much straight down. Can you see how people might find that suspicious? I could try to mediate your debate, to the best of my abilities.

*** Troofer as a term would be better off left to the side for debate with pure conspiracy theorists like Larry.*** #7 was huge and strong. Do you agree that if it was brought down by explosives, then that would imply inside type knowledge?*** Do you have proof of where the debris fell, where the fires were generated in #7? Why didn't sprinklers work? Firemen couldn't try to put it out? In all sincerity, I've never really seen you explain building #7 adequately. Is there a chance that you just don't know also? I'm not trying to create an enigma. I'd really like to know about #7. I always have. The way it fell resembled what a controlled demolition looks like.

If fires can bring down buildings like that, then why doesn't that happen more often (pancake style)? Can you explain in narrative form what happened to #7, I mean exactly? As in what floors the fire debris fell onto and how that explains the physical appearance of how #7 came down. Thanks.

One importat fact tha people continually forget about Building 7 is that ALL firemen were called out of the building by 1130am---this is why Silverstein's "pull it" comment could not have referred to the "unit of firefighters" being "pulled", there were NO firefighters in the building for an entire 6 hours before the building collapsed. Look at the pictures of Building 7. Would-be debunkers can argue all day long that the fires were intense, but its all simply a lie.

Ive seen just about every single photo of building 7 that was taken and NONE of the pictures show a fire so intense that firefighters would be ordered out of the building. It was meant to be demolished, and the people behind it had to wait another 5 or 6 hours before bringing it down because it would have been simply NOT believable that a building would collapse due to small, isolated fires just only after 2 hours.

Just like the twin towers. Ive heard many people ask "Why did the tower that was hit first collapse last?" I have a theory about that, but it's only a theory. [I know debunkers LOVE hearing us admit we have "theories", but because there was no REAL investigation, that's all we can do about certain things].

The tower hit first collapsed last because the fires in the tower hit last were dying out. Look at the footage. There was hardly any visible fires in that second-hit tower, so my assumption is, they had to bring down that tower first so as to divert attention away from the fact that the fires were almost completely died out, and I bet they figured 'if we dont bring this one down first, they will never believe it was due to fire because the fire is almost completely died out'. Again, a theory, but I believe it's valid.

Socrates, I have presented a valid witness...Barry Jennings, who was in Building 7 on 9-11 at around 9am. He and a friend were witnesses to there being an explosion in the building BEFORE either of the twin towers collapsed. He said when he went to the lobby, it was completely destroyed, like "King Kong walked through there" as he put it. Again, this was BEFORE the towers collapsed [which the official story said it was the debris from the towers that caused Building 7's damage]. The 9-11 commission didnt want to hear Jennings' testimony, but he gave an on-camera interview ON 9-11 and he told his story to the Loose Change makers in 2007---and his story never changed in 6 years.

But people like TLNL completely dismiss Jennings, despite the fact that Jennings had absolutely NOTHING to gain by telling this story. He was a city employee. He could have been fired, threatened or ridiculed for this, yet he still told the story. He died in 2008 so now we will never hear from him again.

Socrates, the taking down of builing 7 doesnt in-and-of-itself mean "inside job"----BUT, there has been huge suspicions by 9-11 truthers that Building 7 may have been the nerve center for the taking down of the twin towers and [along with building 7 containing many incriminating government documents, such as Enron information that many would have loved seen destroyed] this building simply had to be disposed of because they couldnt afford to leave any evidence of the twin towers' demolition left behind. If Building 7 was used as the nerve center for the demolition of the towers, then yes, THATS an inside job.

Again, another theory, but like I said without an investigation into this, that's all we can do about it...theorize, and the government loves the fact that they can NOT investigate anything, not examine physical evidence and create "conspiracy theorists" so they can deem them all "crazy" and then hope and pray they have enough people like YOU and TLNL left to join them in calling people who question their actions "a crazy conspiracy theory".

S, I'm more than happy to admit scepticism about 911. What I refuse to accept, and what I call "troof" is when people go beyond mere scepticism and start asserting things.

I also don't think WTC had a "a strong core". Quite the reverse actually for at least 2 reasons:

1) the building was built over a power substation so the design had to accommodate it. This meant a peculiar sort of design - where the weight of the structure had to be spread out across the bottom floors and onto the compromised foundation.

2) The building was of a type that could be rearranged - to serve different functions. Notably, it was possible to turn the centre into a large open space - an atrium - by removing some of the central structures.

Obviously that speaks against a "a strong central core". There wasn't really a core at all.

Does that rule out demolition? No. But there simply isn't any positive evidence for demolition. All we have are people saying "it looked funny"....and twisted distortions such as Silverstein's comment.

For example, Larry says:

It was meant to be demolished, and the people behind it had to wait another 5 or 6 hours before bringing it down because it would have been simply NOT believable that a building would collapse due to small, isolated fires just only after 2 hours.

See - this completely turns reality on its head, to fit a "conclusion" that already exists but which was constructed afterwards.

How does anyone know "it was 'meant' to be destroyed"? They don't - that's cart before horse.

Why not accept the building wasn't "meant" to be demolished, and nobody "waited" to demolish it? Why not accept that the delay in collapse was because the building WITHSTOOD fires all day....and the collapse happened because fires had burned all day. To go further than this, we really must have some evidence to do so. Such evidence simply does not exist - at least not in public. If there was evidence otherwise it would need consideration - but it doesn't even exist. If and when such evidence is found everyone would be forced to consider it. It doesn't exist, so what other choice does one have other than to disregard the crazy claims.

To be clear - I do not *know* what happened - because I cannot *know* what happened. Compare that to the troofers? They believe they *know* and proceed from there.

Let's forget "absolute knowledge" of the event......let's leave what actually happened aside for a while, and consider how we are to work out what happened?

Let's just look at how people approach the evidence - and how they should approach it.

We have to start from nothing....and work up. But troofers - conspiracists all - work the other way. They have their conspiracy....and work from there. They "know" there was a conspiracy, and work to fit the "facts" into it. Hence distortion and cherrypicking. The cherrypicking is quite astonishing. Here's an example from Lord Larry of Prejudice:

L ALL firemen were called out of the building by 1130am

How does he know this? From some "official" source?

But this single claim is absolutely believed by Larry - it is incontrovertible, apparently.

Why? Because it fits Larry's wider scheme.

Nevermind that there are conflicting reports - Larry absolutely knows the "facts".....and they support his view.

Sure, but it isn't down to me to do it. And there likely will never be absolute knowledge of what happened. How could there be? Unless, of course, we get definite positive conclusive evidence for demolition - something we certainly do not have.

I've said before I would rather be wrong by following evidence and science than having overthrown the rules of evidence and science and eventually be proven right.

Because - if one overthrows the rules of evidence and science, how will you ever prove you were "right"? The method is much more important to maintain than any particular event - because without it there is no way to know anything about anything and therefore it would be impossible to prove the conspiracy notion was right. Desperate conspiracists just don't get this.

I think the present focus on WTC7 says a lot: as claims about other aspects of 911 have been rebutted, conspiracism and scepticism has been forced to retreat, and unsurprisingly it has retreated to the place where the facts are in least supply - collapse of WTC7.

Even if WTC7 were proven to have been demolished - by elements of US Govt, or Silverstein, or CIA whatever......that wouldn't prove the whole of 911 was "an inside job" - it would only prove WTC7 was demolished.

Of course, such a conclusion would bring the rest of 911 under even greater scutiny - but so what? We aren't remotely at that position. What remains of 911 conspiracy - WTC7 demolition - still hasn't found a single positive piece of evidence for demolition. That's a pretty poor show - especially when extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (as they like to say)

L: Silverstein's "pull it" comment could not have referred to the "unit of firefighters" being "pulled", there were NO firefighters in the building for an entire 6 hours before the building collapsed.

They needn't have to be "inside" the building. Would you like to have stood right next to WTC when they fell? Dumb.

The building was showing signs of collapse - the firemen had put transits on the building - to very accurately measure movement of the building....which is a sign of structural failure. They cleared the area. It was a large building, and no-one knew beforehand it would fall almost straight down. Obviously.

L: NONE of the pictures show a fire so intense that firefighters would be ordered out of the building.

so that means there couldn't have been intense fires?

and let's not disregard the many tesimonies - of professional firemen - whom said there were.

L: Barry Jennings, who was in Building 7 on 9-11 at around 9am. He and a friend were witnesses to there being an explosion in the building BEFORE either of the twin towers collapsed. He said when he went to the lobby, it was completely destroyed, like "King Kong walked through there" as he put it.

But of course you also insist there was no damage to WTC7.

Which is it Larry? No damage to WTC7 - or did it look as if "king kong had walked through there"?

"The investigators also reported that if the city water main had not been cut by the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2), operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse. “Nevertheless,” Sunder said, “we recommend that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety by preventing structural collapse even during severe fires like this one, when sprinklers do not function, do not exist or are overwhelmed by fire.”

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse. ,,,,,"These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads."

Which is it Larry? No damage to WTC7 - or did it look as if "king kong had walked through there"?"

The damage was INSIDE according to Jennings and this actually supports my view MORE, not LESS, because I never said Building 7 had ZERO damage, I always said the damage was not substantial enough for it to fall STRAIGHT DOWN [or at ALL] in 6 seconds. Do you realize that if a building falls straight down in 6 seconds, that means somewhere in the building it has to be symmetrically weakened as if the collapse point has been blown away [like in a controlled demolition]?

This is EXACTLY why in traditional controlled demolitions they blow out the points of the building all at ONCE so it falls STRAIGHT DOWN. You never see a CD where they blow out one area, then another area, then another---know why? Because the building would crumble. They want buildings to fall straight down in CD's---this is EXACTLY what Building 7 did! Fell straight down. It fell in the very SAME fashion of a CD! And youre saying it fell that way because of isolated, spread out damage throughout the building?? From what YOU describe, it should have CRUMBLED and even THEN not collapsed UNIVERSALLY!!

The fact that there was damage INSIDE the building that Jennings described actualy supports my view more because Im saying the building should have remained standing! And it DID remain standing after the explosion Jennings heard! That SUPPORTS my view! How do you think it taints it???

When are you EVER going to give me ONE example of a building collapsing UNIVERSALLY due to small fires and spread out damage? Im still waiting for ONE example. If buildings collapsed due to fire, firefighters would NEVER go INSIDE buildings to put out fires!!

Thanks for the responses. I understand your take on troofers, just thought I'd get that out into the open so that the nice person debating cd wouldn't take your description personally.

Pne of the reasons I've encouraged discussion of cd on this thread, is because I kind of don't want it all over the blog. The thing about DaveFromQueens, who I'm trying to honour, is he had an idea for allowing conspiracy theory discussion once a week or with a similar structure. It's really not something that can be ignored. Outright censoring it doesn't work.

With my new entry on Annette Appollo, Larry raised an interesting point about how perhaps the internet cannot be blamed for recent violent acts. Thus, if this thread turns into a full debate between yourselves on cd, there is the other thread where we could easily discuss the philosophy of the internet, i.e. of whether it is having real life consequences as we both and many more have suggested.

As for 9/11, cd, etc., I have already admitted this isn't my strong point. I do however believe that if nice people on the opposite side of the debate could stay civil and articulate their points, it would be productive. People who curse and bold print and proselytize too much cause one to turn away, at least me. I've never liked hearing shouting matches or dialogues where people are talking over one another.

As for cd, it seems to make sense to at least start out with focusing on building #7. It wasn't hit by any planes. I also question your idea that it didn't have a strong structure. Wasn't it comprised of a lot of those iron or whatever columns? I can see you've done a lot of reading on this. You say the core could have been removed and turned into an atrium. However, they were still there at the time. Building 7 went straight down. Why didn't that huge core remain standing? Did a lot of it turn to dust? Was the surviving metal shipped to China or something? Do you think the authorities contributed to the idea of a conspiracy by not treating the thing more like a crime scene?

I do agree with you that the Silverstein "pull it" angle like with the idea that Neil Bush ran security at the WTC is crazydisinfo. It's that kind of stuff that makes me kind of like your troofer term. Did you coin that? Or do you have any recollection when you first heard it? I think this is kind of an interesting subject. I used to think chemtrails was one too, or in better words, this is all interesting stuff if it is discussed in logical and fair ways. It's near impossible to get anywhere with such things, if people are screaming or set in their ways or simply ignore what their opposition is saying.

I definitely agree with you that unless the rules of debate are established first, we are pissing into the wind and scaring lurkers off, who otherwise might see something going on here that we are missing and then throw in their two cents. Anyone can post here, as long as they don't act anti-social or curse too much. I'm like you with the Nazi who is camped out at your place. I see how leaving up some of his posts is a good example. However, at what point does one want to start deleting such things? It's a very tough call to make for moderators.

Yes, when Larry or anyone else makes a claim, I'd like to see some solid links. Or at least admit some wiggle room exists.

My thing with chemtrails was this. I saw aircraft turning blue skies white. I didn't start from the idea that those are chemtrails and then everything that seems to back that up becomes supported. Truth is what we are after on any topic, no matter where it leads us. Period.

Im done with this shit. I just fucking spent like 30 minutes typing a huge response to your question about how I know the firefighters were not in the building after 1130am and it did NOT fucking appear. I am PISSED. I am NOT fucking typing that again---but I will say this. A NY Times article by a man named Glanz said there were no firefighters in that building fter 1130. I emailed Larry Silversteins son Roger in 2006 and he said FF were fighting fires for 6 hours before being ordered out. Glanz and Roger S. BOTH cannot be telling the truth.

I believe I proved chemtrails. I took NASA's science. I took the contrail expert's own words on margin of errors for balloon readings. On a number of occassions, there simply weren't the necessary conditions for persistent contrails to form. I went after the heaps of disinfo surrounding that topic. I did what some others did, looked for patents, researched environmental modification techniques, in short, tried to decipher whether a theory of chemtrails was one more grounded in fiction than a degree of probability.

Nothing personal, but each one of us is a nobody. This isn't a competition. No one has to read anything we write. No one has to care about any of our blogs enough to devote time to them. I've actually been off of the chemtrail topic for a while now. I figure I did all I could. I came up with the most plausible theory for the why's. I looked at the science. It is what it is, and can be found in the top section of my forum.

Let me get back to the topic at hand and stop indulging with my own stuff. So do we know what happened to the core metal? Why wouldn't it have stayed upright or fell over? Do we know how much fire traveled from #1 and #2 over to #7? Building #7 seems to be the logical place to debate cd. If #7 can be shown to most likely have fallen due to fires, then most certainly #1 and #2 are taken care of in my mind. But if #7 cannot ever be adequately explained, this thing will always be out there as a plausible conspiracy theory. Of course the Rivero's, Rense's, Carto's, Gunderson's, et al are full of it. Right woos left as Berlet coined it. But I think that's a whole other topic area. There is the search to figure out what happened on 9/11, then there is all this wingnut conspiracy theory shite.

The thing about the fires. Ok, let's say #7 was ablaze. What happened to the metal core? Were the fires everywhere in the building from top to bottom? Why no sprinkler systems or firefighters able to contain it? On the metal core- Don't the fires have to reach a certain point for the stuff to melt into liquid? I would really like to see some video of other buildings which were not hit by planes and collapsed due to fire which fell precisely like #7 did. Or at least some examples of the same kind of thing happening. Do you have examples of those, TLNL?

TLNL, is Barry Jennings a credible witness? You don't seem to be going after him like you have others. If so, what do you think that explosion was that he heard?

Ok, thanks for the thing on #1 and #2 collapses cutting off the water main and hence #7's sprinklers being able to fight the fires. Any chance it's been explained how the collapses of @1 and #2 cut off the water. I guess that makes sense.

Ok TLNL, thanks for that info. I'll await to see if the other side can counter-punch that. I'm also curious about the metal core and what it takes for that stuff to melt. Perhaps that is the holy grail for the conspiracy theorists or something similar. To show that some evidence exists that doesn't match up with the NIST Report. The thing is, as conspiracy theorists are vulnerable to taking info and fitting into prejudged conclusions, the same could be said of so-called authorities. I take note that the NIST people said they were spurred on by conspiracy theorist questions. You'd think if this topic was cut and dried, those "experts" wouldn't care what the ct zeitgeist is saying.

One more question, if you don't mind. I know you have asked Larry if he is an architect. Obviously he isn't. Richard Gage is, however. Do you think Gage has been sincere with his own efforts. Is there anything you see from people like him, folks having nothing to do with the neonazis, that makes you scratch your head? What do you think is the best evidence any 9/11 skeptics have come up with?

I am not someone with much knowledge on 9/11. Asking me questions is probably not going to lead to that many answers.

I do think you raised some good points about how fast and pancake styled #7 fell. I also would like TLNL or anyone else to show examples of other buildings falling in the same way due to fires. Though I guess the plausible deniability is that the sprinklers failed, and if they hadn't, #7 would have stood. That's very convenient. I know it might actually be the truth. So I guess the key for the official story people is to prove the fire was all over #7. Maybe some video of #7 all during the day would be helpful. To see if the fires were everywhere. Yet, again, I am saying I am clueless on this topic. I'm not one to be asked questions on 9/11 and expect much in return. As Clint Eastwood in some movie said, "A man has to know his limitations." Maybe someday I'll write a blog entry on chemtrails. Or maybe not. I think I might just to show I'm not scared or ashamed of having gotten into trying to figure that out. I think I did, and one can go to my forum to see what I and a few others came up with, whether on the chemtrails themselves or the disinfo pumped out concerning them.

Larry, quit lumping me in with TLNL and lose the gutter mouth, or I will permanently ban you. I'm not a 9/11 debunker nor believer, so stop making it seem otherwise. I'm not TLNL. I refuse to allow you to act like a troll and make it seem we are the same person. You are now on a very short leash with your cursing. In fact, you are not allowed to curse one bit anymore on this blog. I'm done with you doing that.

"my problem isn't with a random curse word once in a while. My problem with you was how you use them in frothing verbal assaults on others."

I guess that was then, this is now.

"I also would like TLNL or anyone else to show examples of other buildings falling in the same way due to fires."

TLNL has only ever addressed that question ONCE and his brilliant answer was the McCormick Center in Chicago, 1968. But his example was a poor one. The McCormick Center was NOT a universal collapse [the outer walls were still standing. It was just one gigantic roof collapse]. I REPEATEDLY told him this, and he would REPEATEDLY ignore it.

He will NEVER give one example. Because there's not one. He has repeatedly claimed there is, but he never EVER gives the name of the building, dates, or any other info. You dont call THAT disinfo??

"So I guess the key for the official story people is to prove the fire was all over #7. Maybe some video of #7 all during the day would be helpful. To see if the fires were everywhere."

That' impossible because the fires were NEVER everywhere, but only in isolated spots. I think the footage of the collapse itself suffices, because at collapse time there's no fires visible...anywhere.

TLNL has NEVER explained the fact that WTC 4,5 and 6 had 10 times the damage WTC 7 did, and those buildings had MASSIVE fires. At one time, building 5 was completely engulfed in flames. Guess what? Despite the immense damage to WTC 4, 5 and 6 [the twin towers fell RIGHT ON TOP of these buildings] and the fact that Bankers Trust had more damage and more fires, NO OTHER building collapsed but WTC 7 [the one with the least damage and least fires].

And that the lobby was full of dead people, whom he had to step on to get out.

IIRC his dispute with LooseChange was partly about that - he wasn't happy with their portrayal...he said he didn't actually see any dead people....just knew he was stepping on them.

Jennings' account has a lot of anomolies. Was WTC7 lobby wrecked and full of dead people before the towers collapsed? Did it look "as if King Kong" has been through there? Was there "a hole in the wall" of the building which he escaped through?

Jennings, if being honest, I think was simply mistaken. Not hard to understand that, given the circumstances.

I think he perhaps confused the first tower collapse with "explosions" in WTC7.....when he was leaving the office he'd just arrived at, but which was deserted. When leaving, there were "explosions"...(the 1st tower) .....then "the tower fell"....(the second one). The lobby of WTC7 then looked "as if King Kong has been through it". Then he crossed the lobby, and exited through a door.

Maybe his embellishment and confusion is simply a product of confusion and extreme stress.

But I don't see any reason to believe his every word.....or any of it necessarily. WTC7 was evacuated. Has anyone seen photos of this "hole" in the building he could have used to make his exit? Were there people dead all over the lobby? Hmm.

On the structure of WTC7, I didn't say it wasn't "strong"....just that I don't think there's any reason to see it as especially strong rather the opposite - and it didn't have a core in the sense of the other WTC - it had columns spread throughout.

On the cause of the initiation of the collapse, the NIST report is very clear - the joints were not designed to take the amount of lateral expansion experienced by the long beams. Such thermal expansion happened in fires which were uncontrolled (because of the water problems and everything else that was happening)

There's no suggestion that the fires melted any steel - only that such long beams expanded more than was designed for, due to uncontrolled fires.

IIRC NIST says one column (on the west side) became detached (the penthouse hut side), and this was the initiation for the collapse. They give column number (79), floor level (13).

NIST:“Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

It also says:

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Well, if we take WTC and model it, and can conclude failure of Column 79 will cause a collapse much like what was seen......and if we can prove long floor beams will expand enough to cause that column failure.....then we have a very firm possible explanation.

And that's what NIST did? So, you know....

And they published it - and opened it for responses. It also led to recommendations for new building codes. Would all american engineers* accept this if they didn't think it sound advice?

Of course, some will just say it could have been explosives and not fire that caused the column failure...... hehe

I don't think it will cease being a subject of conspiracy theory. :)

I think they did treat it as a crimescene. The steel was examined. Not every piece, obviously, but the parts that the engineers wanted to see. They had to cart off all the mess - what else were they going to do? But not absent engineers and investigators advice and instruction. People moan that evidence was removed from the scene of a crime - but it always is - once the police get there, and investigators set to work.

* - Richard Gage? He's a full-time employee of AE911. Check his site - look at the campaigns to get cash from mugs....errr....members. Look at the shop.

Of course, there's a lot more cause to doubt the sincerity (or sanity?) of Richard Gage. But.....go have a dig around their site? See what you make of it? I'll dig out the best critique of him and his claims.

I don't believe him at all.

One time he tried to prove the WTC 1+2 couldn't have collapsed - by dropping cardboard boxes on one another(!)

As I pointed out elsewhere, there's a very important scaling aspect to the problem. Simplest illustration is to imagine standing cardboard boxes on top of one another.

If you've ever worked in a warehouse you'll know what happens when a pile of boxes (even full of stuff) is stacked so high it exceeds its definite limit. The bottom box will collapse....

Of course it doesn't collapse when you drop one empty box on top of another.

But this is what Gage was once parading on his lecture tours.videos.tshirts.mugs.

Some "expert"?

------

I was reluctant to get into this 911 stuff........didn't want to derail the thread. :D

Thanks for the posts, TLNL. This is beyond my knowledge base to get into. Perhaps the nice anonymous who has been talking about cd would like to discuss this with you.

If there was ever a thread here that would allow for any and all discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theory, I figure this is as good as any.

The blog entry kind of stands on its own, so don't worry about "derailing" anything.

I tried my best to work out a situation where Larry could continue posting here, but I've had enough. This is tricky enough stuff to discuss as it is. Plus, I'm not really too keen on having Holocaust denier supporters anywhere near the vicinity.

My rules are simple. Don't troll me or anyone else. Don't use a gutter mouth. I won't be anal retentive about it, but there are limits to anyone's patience.

Bedell was into Sept. 11th conspiracy theory. I put up some stuff on it myself concerning Hopsicker and Dunne. You've done nothing wrong TLNL.

I don't feel much about deleting Larry...nor should you.....nobody has to listen to him....he has his own blog. Same as every other 911 conspiracy blog. Larry's deletion is hardly a threat to his freespeech. Nothing he says is suppressed - everyone knows the Troofer claims, one can't escape them.

Just like they say "No criticism of Israel is allowed" whilst such criticism is everywhere, troofers say they are suppressed whilst their views are perfectly well known....

Hell, even NIST specifically looked for evidence of explosives at WTC7 because of conspiracy claims....how much more influence do they want for claims that have produced absolutely no firm evidence?

On these misplaced assertions of suppression (of 911 claims, of criticism of Israel) I found a very interesting internal argument amongst some 911 Truthers at that Halfway place:

head of one 911 org. has attacked another member/group - for spreading anti-semitic and white supremacist ideas on the back of "911 Truth".

Hey, finally a Truther who notices!?

Yes, well done to her. But.....here's the thing: she claims accusations of 911 Truth being anti-semitic and racist are used to demonise Truthers and shutdown all discussions - as a means to protect the perps, etc.

But - she suggests the mainstream has been flooded with such accusations!

LOL - that's news to me. I have been trying to get that message out for nearly 5 years now - you and I met years ago at old WRH "official unofficial" board.....where criticisms of anti-semitism and racism were appropriate, yet suppressed.

I bet you didn't know you and I were pursuing some things which are "all over the mainstream"?

Then there's the fact that 911 Truth really is laced with anti-semitism, white supremacism - and Nazism, which she missed out.

Shouldn't we expect this fact to become known, because it is err, you know , TRUE!

Some people go so far as to claim every conspiracy has essentially anti-semitic roots. I'm reluctant to go so far, but undoubtedly there's a close connection between anti-semitism and conspiracism: anti-semitism usually includes accusations of jewish conspiracy, for example, and conspiracy tends to snowball to include all events in a grand conspiracy. Jews are an obvious and perennial candidate for being the perps, and it provides a simple explanation, with an obvious (final) solution - one which justifies and expresses the conspiracist's anti-semitism.

But....I'm amazed to see claims that this is "all over the mainstream".

It isn't. And certainly hasn't been. The meme is gaining ground though, as it becomes impossible to not recognise the facts.

Funny too, that this woman (and truthers) suggest 911 Truth is suppressed - and yet at the same time she is saying "the mainstream is full of stories about Truthers being anti-semitic."

But the public are supposedly being denied finding out about 911 Truth! Even though the mainstream is supposedly full of stories about them?

Sure, Truthers are increasingly portrayed as racists and bigots - but still, the public have to know of the group before demonisation can even properly proceed - whether criticism is warranted or not.

Campaigns of demonisation and suppression are kinda antagonistic.

As I read the article, with this woman denouncing the racists and supremacists, I was applauding and cheering inside - at last! someone who notices! But reading on, I became less impressed, and concerned: people who oppose anti-semitism, racism and nazism running through 911 Truth are actually intent on protecting the 911 perps! A two-step with the racists so as to purposefully sideline 911 Truth!

Hmmm. Thanks for that, love.

I suppose it's coherent, in a wacky kinda way. But it still misses the point that racism, anti-semitism and nazism deserve opposition on any ground. If 911 Truth genuinely opposed those things, then the supposed govt operation to demonise 911 Truth wouldn't have any grounds to work its magic. And it would in fact have done something positive....by identifying racism, nazism etc....and encouraging its criticism and helping to expunge the fascist tendencies.

You don't infiltrate a movement by saying things no-one in the movement agrees with.

Janice Matthews was the woman's name. The post is over at Halfway, about 4 pages in on their recent posts. I can't link properly as I am banned.

I'm not sure, but it appears that anyone can log into blogger and then subscribe to comments. Then even if they are deleted, such people will be able to see if anything got scrubbed.

I've been busy making some solid posts on the Annette Appollo thread. I've provided links and some good insights into the Lefty Liars Club. I've kind of put things together even more for interested newbies and fence sitters trying to figure out my schtick.

I just deleted a Larry post there and one here enabling the threads to continue without troll noise. Another internet friend, donkeytale, has gotten through to me that threads are best when they do go a bit off-topic. Yet, there's a big difference between a natural digression and someone creating havoc. People either trust us as moderators or not.

Those are interesting posts, TLNL. There is something referred to as meta. It's the kind of stuff I thoroughly enjoy. It's kind of pretty much what I do. I'm been into studying the internet, after that initial gobbling it up on face value. I started in 2005. I got burned quite a bit. I went for meta revenge and succeeded.

We didn't exactly meet on the WRH (official) Unofficial Forum. My moderator at the time was the one you met. He told me about the place, especially that guy Ender (a different one from the soapblox world (DKos) Ender. I usually do my best when I have some human contact, people to bounce ideas off of and vice-versa.

Sure, we have been getting along splendidly for months on end, but people might be surprised to know we hated each other for a while. First we were on the same page. Then I got paranoid about your intentions. It felt like I got trapped into that cybersmear script, where we were astroturfed as being the same bloke.

I will always be grateful to you for reaching out to me at Aircraft Wings back when it allowed for guest posts. (side note- Free Forums stopped that, because it was getting its arse spammed too much, slowing down the servers.)

I guess that is all water under the bridge. But it's still a very cool thing that we made up. We have been able to do good things together. I told you about Agent99 and Big Dan of BradBlog. You took the football and ran with it. I came up with stuff on Tinoire, and it resonated with you, seeing that she too along with Wells pinned us as being the same bloke.

Your finds also helped me see things more clearly. I had never heard of Curtis Maynard. I had no concept of Alex Jones' coding Jooos as the New World Order. I especially appreciated your find that linked Rivero to PMC4 LLC.. That was huge! It took me a long time to figure out the ramifications from when you first shared that info. I'm kind of a late bloomer, in life and as a blogger. Eventually though I do have a good capacity to get to real stories behind obfuscations.

And those are only a few examples by which our paths and ideas have intersected. My advice to newbies and fence sitters is don't sweat it, if this stuff gets too overwhelming. Eventually it will make sense in its entirety. Or just look into the things that interest you. The best results with research are done when one has an interest in the topic. That is fundamental. The best teachers thus find out what interests each student and allows them to incorporate those into the curriculum.

Though I'm not too into 9/11 conspiracy theory specifics, I am very much fascinated by the sociological implications.

I forget what forum you're referring to. I'm thinking Halfway House is a lampoon job you've made on that neonazi forum associated with Sweejak. But I just googled Janice Matthews and see you must be onto something. Another name just popped up while googling. Jon Gold. That's another one of Hopsicker's Facebook friends, to go along with Bedell and Jeff Rense. Funny how the same names always keep popping up.

Hmmm. I think I'm in over my head. I'm on one page where it's conveyed that Matthews vouches for someone named Les Jamieson of NYCCAN.ORG. Then Les is asking for donations.

There was a statement written deploring the linking of Von Brunn to the 9/11 truth movement. So I see your point how this outrage by Matthews is probably more about self-preservation than a 100% sincere cleaning of neonazis.

Peter Dale Scott also signed his name. That guy is one of Wells' friends on Facebook, for what it's worth.

TLNL, we've simply been carrying the torch first lit by others. We probably most resemble the work of the Mysterious S. Boyle. There's that Ernie guy you've linked to. Dr. Laniac wrote good stuff. But you're correct. Few and far between in the "alternative media" have washed their hands of it. And now they have the gall to represent it as some kind of disinfo campaign to make 9/11 truthers look bad.

We have advanced our cause from being smeared, esoteric writers into helping form powerful pockets of awareness. It shows that being persistent can pay dividends.

Nonetheless, I can still provide a number of examples in which I tried to inform the leftosphere of this topic only to be met with abuse or crickets chirping. When I went to My Left Wing, I gave links and explained what was going on, and no one cared. When Tinoire made up lies to ban me from PI, after I called out posters for anti-semitic statements, a place called Prosemite Undercover watched my back and helped prove my side of the story. However, when I started to explain the Rivero connection to them, all I got were more crickets.

So I don't see our take as having gotten too far into the mainstream blogosphere either. At My Left Wing, some insidious poster named Karmafish likes to spin this as being anti-semitism from the Left. I gave him tons of good links showing right woos left is a realty. He went into ignore mode.

In fact, one of the only persons I got through to was this dude named donkeytale. He first settled me down, because I was namedropping too much. I was somewhat all over the place. But little by little, he started to understand. Now he has even incorporated the idea of right woos left into his schtick.

I'd rather a place like this, yours, and elsewhere continue to hammer out solid points than consistently get derailed by the likes of Larry. I gave him every opportunity to settle down and stop trolling. I haven't deleted too many of his posts. I only delete things right away. If they survive at the beginning, I certainly do not go back and scrub them later. I've even reposted some of them bleeping out the words I found offensive. I'd rather have less comments now and retain the possibility of attracting decent people in the future. I don't buy that flame fests attract readers. Never did. Never will.

S: Nonetheless, I can still provide a number of examples in which I tried to inform the leftosphere of this topic only to be met with abuse or crickets chirping. When I went to My Left Wing, I gave links and explained what was going on, and no one cared.

exactly. for janice matthews, or anyone, to paint these ideas as "flooding the mainstream" is a complete distortion of the facts. Nobody much has been interested. Now the idea is gaining some traction they're putting out the meme it's all some govt plot to betray "troof".

On Troof, and troofers.....I can't imagine I coined the terms. "Truthers" was already common parlance, and I think I saw someone writing "troofers". I don't know if I can lay claim to the idea of Troof being like Truth - but not quite - as my own invention. But mine is the only effort I've seen to really try to turn it into a definition. It serves the job brilliantly : pseudoscience = troof

It looks like the real thing - but it's not.

S: We probably most resemble the work of the Mysterious S. Boyle.

Thank you S Boyle. Where are you?

There's that Ernie guy you've linked to.

God bless Ernie. I love Ernie for doing all that. What does Ernie demand in his pages? Nothing for himself. He doesn't demand anything......just makes stuff available.

http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/

I suspect he's too liberal/conservative and I'm too socialist communist for us to really agree - but I bet we could get on. I respect genuine conservatives and liberals and I've really no desire to inflict any leftist dictatorship. And I will defend the status quo against worse.

I agree. As long as someone is civil and honest in debate, I don't care what their politics are. Dialogue is a two-way street. Some of my best conversations were with people swaying middle of the road to conservative, because they showed some open-mindedness. Of course like-minded people are more likely to take things up a notch, but for everyday values, tolerance and compassion are good things to possess. They listened to me. I listened to them. No problem.

Those pictures of Atta are a joke. I'd read about that woman claiming Atta had been her boyf....and I'd also tried to see how firm the verious reported sightings of Atta at stripjoints etc were. Hmmm.

1) They're not very firm - and some are conflicting in details IIRC2) There's no reason to suppose Atta and co couldn't have gone to stripjoints even accepting their supposed religious/ideological objections. Hypocrites are everywhere - not least amongst religious extremists.

But those Atta pics are sooooo hokey. Does Hopsicker believe it's atta? Hard to imagine he can.

Personally I find the testimony of the dude who checked Atta in at the airport to be amongst the most convincing descriptions of him. He says he had a bad feeling about Atta.....that he was a terrorist/evil. HE didn't want to let Atta through, but felt he had to, incase he was wrong and Atta might sue, and then he and his company would be in deep shit (for profiling etc). He must feel dreadful.

There's no way the boyfriend in the Hopsicker video was Atta. Thanks for backing me up on that.

I also agree with you on how even if Atta did partake in things going against Al Queda doctrine, it wouldn't be some smoking gun. We debated this months ago at your blog. It could have been the radical fundamentalist version of a James Bond maneuver. Bond would sleep with the enemy in order to find out secrets. Atta could have been snorting coke and going to strip joints as part of his "intelligence" work.

Now why are you raising issues that don't fit into the kooky worldview? Are you working for the Mossad? p:>

I remember there was one security guy who had a bad feeling about Atta, but a quick google search isn't getting the job done. I forget whether he was from the Portland, Maine or Boston (Logan) airport.

This link might be relevant to your last point. I definitely remember that dude, though my memory of him and his story isn't so hot.

...Congressman David E. Bonior (D-MI), who represents a heavily Arab district, aligned himself with CAIR over the Argenbright complaint. “This incident raises a larger issue: that of widespread and systematic discrimination against Muslims and Arab Americans in airports all across the country,” Bonior said in a March 1999 House speech. Copies of CAIR’s booklet, An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices, were available through Bonior’s Michigan office. Bonior also pressed Jane Garvey, FAA director in the Clinton administration, to end all profiling of Arabs and other Muslims at US airports.

A month later, in April 1999, Argenbright Security agreed to settle the case by rehiring the women, giving them back pay and an additional $2,500 each, and agreeing to a sensitivity program on Muslim issues for all employees. Argenbright Security also gave each woman a written apology. As a result of the lawsuit, airline, security, and airport management feared provoking Muslim employees. All seven successful Muslim complainants still worked as Dulles screeners on 9/11....

Michael Tuohey sobbed with grief after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He also felt guilt.

A U.S. Airways ticket agent at the time, Tuohey had handed boarding passes to Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz Alomari that morning as they rushed to make their flight at Portland International Jetport.

In the days after Atta and his fellow suicide hijackers killed close to 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, Tuohey held himself at least partly responsible.

He was suspicious of them, he said, but did nothing. Later, as he watched news reports of the towers crumbling, of people jumping from the skyscraper windows to avoid being burned alive, he blamed himself.

"In your mind you're saying, 'Why didn't you react? Why didn't you do something?' " Tuohey said during an interview at his home in Scarborough. "You just have that torturous thing pulling your mind apart." ---Tuohey remembers that anger vividly.

"He looks at me and says, 'I thought there was one-step check-in. . . .They told me one-step check-in,' " Tuohey said. "I looked in this guy's eyes, and he just looked angry. I just got an uncomfortable feeling."

Then his eyes locked on Atta.

"It just sent chills through you. You see his picture in the paper (now). You see more life in that picture than there is in flesh and blood," Tuohey said.

Then Tuohey went through an internal debate that still haunts him.

"I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this," he said. "You've checked in hundreds of Arabs and Hindus and Sikhs, and you've never done that. I felt kind of embarrassed."

It wasn't just Atta's demeanor that caught Tuohey's attention.

"When I looked at their tickets, they had first-class, one-way tickets - $2,500 tickets. Very unusual," he said. "I guess they're not coming back. Maybe this is the end of their trip."

He told a co-worker of his discomfort about Atta and Alomari. "I said, 'I checked in two guys for the flight, and I thought they were terrorists and now I feel bad for them.' "

"I just knew. My gut told me there was something wrong with this guy. It was enervating. Your stomach tied up in a knot."

A few weeks later, another investigator came by Tuohey's house and showed him a large number of pictures and asked him to point out the men he had waited on that day.

"I went right to Atta," Tuohey said. "It's like the skull on a poison bottle. There's no mistaking that face." ---"I will never ignore my instincts again," he said vehemently.

"Everyone knows the pictures of the guy now," Tuohey continues. "That cold, hard picture. Well that is a warm and cuddly look compared to what I saw. My stomach literally turned over when Atta looked at me. I thought, 'Why is this man so angry?' He was looking at me sideways, and all this anger and contempt came through. I thought, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, nobody does.' I've checked in hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world, and he's the only one who made me have that reaction. I remember telling myself, 'Stop being a jerk. These are Arab businessmen.' Those were the exact words that went through my head."

His eyes well with tears, and for the next minute he cannot speak. He gathers himself. "Why didn't I recognize the devil? I did recognize him. But I didn't stop him.

"This is the most painful thing. I've always trusted my instincts. Always. But you have to know what it was like then. If you respond and are wrong, you get screwed." He lays out a different scenario for his visitor. A what-if. This time he trusts his gut. He calls security. The men miss their flight. "Suppose they had been just businessmen. They don't get to L.A. Maybe lose out on a multimillion-dollar business deal. They sue our airline for millions. We also get fined $1.5 million for racial profiling. I'd have put the whole company in jeopardy."

About a briefing to the president on August 6, 2001. "It was all there," Tuohey says. "Osama bin Laden. Hijackings. Buildings in New York City. These weren't dots they had to connect. These were potholes. If just those words -- hijackings, terrorists -- had come down to us, we'd have gone to level 3 security. Now here I am. I have two young Arabic men in front of me. One-way tickets, checking in just minutes before departure. At level 3, I would have been required to notify security. Their bags would have been opened. What we saw would have set off suspicions: a pilot's uniform, a video on flying jets. Airline pilots do not buy $2,400 first-class tickets. Airline pilots are the cheapest people on earth. Right there, we would have known something was wrong. This was preventable."

http://www.yankeemagazine.com/issues/2006-09/features/ticketagent/1

-------------

That's what I think has been missed by all this conspiracy stuff. They had a brief Aug 6th 2001. All the guff has led us away from that.

I know exactly what you mean. Instead of going over things that can be proven or are open to legitimate conjecture, a lot of people are merely generating noise.

Some guy recently showed up at the Aircraft Wings forum (linked to in my blogger profile). He just showed up and said look at me and my video. He had nothing to offer on my approach or finds or anything else for that matter. No hello. Just a hey, look at me and this ufo. Like he had no clue that I hate kookiness. Some goofiness can be ok. But just say no to Kooky. I have absolutely nothing in common with such fools. What I've been up to has been more akin to social theory combined with cybersleuthing, not conspiracy theory. I've always aspired to keep opinion and conjecture separate from what is factual. You've touched on this point before, so I know you are nodding in agreement.

I researched this person a bit. He's basically a conspiracy theory freak. He's into Alex Jones and Ron Paul. I so want to boot him. I am very tired of being bombarbed with stereotypical tinfoil. I hate Alex Jones, Rense, Rivero and all the others who post like them. I wish them all a certain kind of bad luck.